I apologize for the errors in editing my questions and the hiccup in my train of thought.
Question 4 should be: Once created, does a work of performance art have its own existence, separate from its performers?
Question 5. Once created, does a work of art have its own existence separate from observers?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Can we have immoral art; and how might we characterize it?
I believe there are three theoretical categories of immoral art and that real works of art can be found in all three theoretical categories.
I would characterize the first category as art produced by an immoral person, where the judgment of immorality is based upon the artist’s character and is not necessarily related to the actual production of said art. In such a case, a value judgment of immorality levied against an artist would then be transferred to the object of art through the association of its creation from an immoral source. Examples of this category of immoral art would be the art produced by Adolph Hitler, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and Michael Jackson. (For more of Hitler's paintings go to http://quazen.com/arts/art-history/10-paintings-by-adolf-hitler/)
The second category would be characterized as art produced through immoral actions. Here, a value judgment of immorality levied against the method of artistic production would then be conveyed to the art object by virtue of its immoral fabrication. Examples of this category of immoral art would be: art produced from stolen materials or ideas; art produced involuntarily (from coercion in any form on any sentient being, i.e., slave or child labor, blackmail, all wild animal performances, inhumane domestic animal performances); art produced or performed through immoral actions such as killing a sentient being for the purpose of using their bodily fluids or other parts as a medium in an artistic creation (blood for paint, skin as canvas, bones in sculptures), utilizing paint drenched bodies in an orgy directed on canvas or sculpting medium (this has the potential to be a painting or sculpture created from an immoral act or a performance of an immoral act (category #3) or both); and art conceived, created, or performed while the artist/s are using illegal substances, i.e. heroin, cocaine, marijuana, peyote, and alcohol (when legal age-applicable). This category would also have to contain art conceived, created, or performed in a drunken (or other legally sanctioned, mind/consciousness altering substance) stupor – a morally deficient state. Here the immorality lies in the method and the means of production.
The third category would harbor any art offering for consumption representational, or actual, immoral objects and activities, including vocal and verbal communication. Art (including literary works of art and opera) depicting killing, maiming, raping, pillaging, war, crucifixions, slavery, domination, classism, prejudice, elitism, sexism, ageism, species extinction, lewd and lascivious dancing, music, or performances, acts of love-making or fornication, elimination of bodily wastes, expletives, or artistic performances involving any immoral language, gestures, sounds, or activities fall into this third category.
All three categories share one thing; we are not judging the morals of the art itself. Instead, we are judging the morals intrinsic to the art’s creators, or judging the morality of the manufacturing methods these creators employed to produce their art, or judging the morality or immorality of the ideas, objects, sounds, and actions, i.e., the content presented by the art’s creators.
Richard Westwood-Brookes, a historical documents expert at Mullock's of Shropshire auction house, on being questioned about the sale of Hitler-related artifacts said, "I don't take any moral position. You can't say this guy was a bad guy, so I won't sell his memorabilia, this guy was a good guy so I will sell his. If you do that, where do you stop?"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/23/hitler.auction/index.html
Morals and art are interpreted through the different perspectives born of culture, educated by life-experience, curiosity, and reflection. Art, which is itself an object and therefore lacks agency, is morally neutral. It is only within the context of the interaction between the art and its observer can the question of morals be raised. Moreover, that context will either be informed by, or ignorant of, the personal morals of its creator and/or the morality or immorality involved in the production and presentation of said work of art. It is within the framework of that context our reflections on morality should be deliberated. That context is ripe with “eyes of the other,” opportunities for Socratic Moments, and self-and societal-enrichment.
My Questions:
1.Do moral considerations, whether they concern the artist or the artistic object itself, have any relevance to whether or not a thing qualifies as a work of art?
2.Should the moral or immoral actions of artists effect how we evaluate their art?
3.Once created, does a work of art have its own existence, separate from its creator?
4.Once created, does a work of performance art have its own existence, separate from its performers?
I would characterize the first category as art produced by an immoral person, where the judgment of immorality is based upon the artist’s character and is not necessarily related to the actual production of said art. In such a case, a value judgment of immorality levied against an artist would then be transferred to the object of art through the association of its creation from an immoral source. Examples of this category of immoral art would be the art produced by Adolph Hitler, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and Michael Jackson. (For more of Hitler's paintings go to http://quazen.com/arts/art-history/10-paintings-by-adolf-hitler/)
The second category would be characterized as art produced through immoral actions. Here, a value judgment of immorality levied against the method of artistic production would then be conveyed to the art object by virtue of its immoral fabrication. Examples of this category of immoral art would be: art produced from stolen materials or ideas; art produced involuntarily (from coercion in any form on any sentient being, i.e., slave or child labor, blackmail, all wild animal performances, inhumane domestic animal performances); art produced or performed through immoral actions such as killing a sentient being for the purpose of using their bodily fluids or other parts as a medium in an artistic creation (blood for paint, skin as canvas, bones in sculptures), utilizing paint drenched bodies in an orgy directed on canvas or sculpting medium (this has the potential to be a painting or sculpture created from an immoral act or a performance of an immoral act (category #3) or both); and art conceived, created, or performed while the artist/s are using illegal substances, i.e. heroin, cocaine, marijuana, peyote, and alcohol (when legal age-applicable). This category would also have to contain art conceived, created, or performed in a drunken (or other legally sanctioned, mind/consciousness altering substance) stupor – a morally deficient state. Here the immorality lies in the method and the means of production.
The third category would harbor any art offering for consumption representational, or actual, immoral objects and activities, including vocal and verbal communication. Art (including literary works of art and opera) depicting killing, maiming, raping, pillaging, war, crucifixions, slavery, domination, classism, prejudice, elitism, sexism, ageism, species extinction, lewd and lascivious dancing, music, or performances, acts of love-making or fornication, elimination of bodily wastes, expletives, or artistic performances involving any immoral language, gestures, sounds, or activities fall into this third category.
All three categories share one thing; we are not judging the morals of the art itself. Instead, we are judging the morals intrinsic to the art’s creators, or judging the morality of the manufacturing methods these creators employed to produce their art, or judging the morality or immorality of the ideas, objects, sounds, and actions, i.e., the content presented by the art’s creators.
Richard Westwood-Brookes, a historical documents expert at Mullock's of Shropshire auction house, on being questioned about the sale of Hitler-related artifacts said, "I don't take any moral position. You can't say this guy was a bad guy, so I won't sell his memorabilia, this guy was a good guy so I will sell his. If you do that, where do you stop?"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/23/hitler.auction/index.html
Morals and art are interpreted through the different perspectives born of culture, educated by life-experience, curiosity, and reflection. Art, which is itself an object and therefore lacks agency, is morally neutral. It is only within the context of the interaction between the art and its observer can the question of morals be raised. Moreover, that context will either be informed by, or ignorant of, the personal morals of its creator and/or the morality or immorality involved in the production and presentation of said work of art. It is within the framework of that context our reflections on morality should be deliberated. That context is ripe with “eyes of the other,” opportunities for Socratic Moments, and self-and societal-enrichment.
My Questions:
1.Do moral considerations, whether they concern the artist or the artistic object itself, have any relevance to whether or not a thing qualifies as a work of art?
2.Should the moral or immoral actions of artists effect how we evaluate their art?
3.Once created, does a work of art have its own existence, separate from its creator?
4.Once created, does a work of performance art have its own existence, separate from its performers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)